Alongside the widely publicised lopping of child benefits for higher-rate taxpayers, George Osborne has also announced plans for a cap on how much any one non-working family can get from the State.
The maximum will be set at £26,000 and starts in 2013. It’s likely to affect larger families, particularly those put into private rented accomodation by their local authority.
This capping seems to be pretty much impossible to do with the system as it is right now. There’s a host of different benefits and credits, all administered by different people and, in some cases, totally different tiers of government. To figure out the total every family is getting and then apply a £26,000 cut-off across that range of benefits would be an administrative nightmare.
It may be that this becomes possible under the IDS plans for a unified benefit system.
More concerning is what happens to those people who find their benefits cut (estimated at around 50,000 people, with a saving to the Treasury of hundreds of millions of pounds).
It’s one thing to see a story in the Daily Mail or Express about some family that’s been put up in a million pound mansion by their local authority, and to think that there must be a better way. It’s a different matter to figure out what that better way actually is.
What is the family meant to do when their benefits are cut and they can no longer afford the rent? Will it create an incentive for the family to split up?
That’s a very real problem the families themselves and their local authorities will face, and the Treasury would do well to have a very good answer before this change is introduced.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Six council by-elections, spread over two days
Carers remain forgotten in government's welfare overhaul
Steffan Aquarone's Commons debate on coastal communities
Getting things done - Saggar Street - an update #dundeewestend
Loving our neighbours
Getting the basics right
Roland
Joseph Bourke
Stephen Nash
Margot Wilson
142 Comments
Undoubtedly there will be some individuals that suffer as a result of this policy (as there will be anomalies with the removal of child benefits for higher tax payers) this is regretful. However, capping total benefit entitlements is about sending a message that if you work you will be better off – this policy can ensure this message.
The family can do what normal people do when they become poorer – move to a cheaper part of town or to a smaller house.
Capping benefits sounds like a good idea to me. Whilst benefits must be enough to survive on between jobs, you should not be better off on benefits than you are in work. £26,000 sounds quite generous. It is slightly more than the median household income – half of all households have an income more than this and half less. A cap at this level does not make you badly off. Not compared with the millions of families who work for a living and make less than this.
On the face of it, it sounds like a lot. 2 people would have to work 42 hours per week each on the minimum wage to earn this much before tax and far more after tax. If you take into account the benefits that low paid families get, the hours look more reasonable. 2 people working 37 hours per week on the minimum wage plus £62 per week in benefits = £26,000 per year. Whilst I’m not sure you would necessarily be better off in low paid work than on capped benefits, at least the proposed level isn’t punitive.
What I’d like to know is how many households get more in benefits than the proposed cap and how much money would be saved by the country.
I would have hoped that the LibDems in government might have already asked the question even before the change was announced. So perhaps they could provide an answer in pretty short order. Where are Alexander/Webb?
This seems like back of fag packet stuff, not thought through at all. The ?unintended consequences in areas that will be affected (mainly ?central London) are likely to be huge.
My guess is that this policy will get a rather thorough scrubbing down in the next couple of years.
Tony Greaves
What people fail to realise is the claimant does not get £26000 given to them cash in hand. What they are given cash in hand is the basic minimum that the state says they need to live on. Approximately £9 per day. The vast bulk of the £26000+ will be used to pay for housing cost.
This is just another coalition attack on the family, whether rich, poor, or neither. A family with four children, let’s say, claiming the maximum. Under the new rules they are fine. The family next door, also with four children, but two are severely disabled. Their claim is above the £26000 cap, because of the disability element of the claim. So in effect the policy would put those who are in greater need into even greater difficulties. Where is the fairness element in that?
I have a large family and we are unemployed. But we don’t live in a million pound mansion, or even a £2000/week house. We live in a bog standard, 3 bedroom council maisonette on an estate. We don’t have enough housing points to move, even with 6 children. If my husband or I have not found a job by 2013 (and I sincerely hope we have), we stand to lose over £5000, or almost £100 per week. Where will this cut be made? According to an article in the Guardian, these savings will likely be in housing benefit. But this means we risk being made homeless! I accept that the benefits system is generous, that I am fortunate to get what we do, but cutting and capping like this will probably cost the government far more in the long run. What will become of my children if we become homeless? How will they acheive well at school when they have no stability, or are hungry? There seems to be no forward thinking at all for these measures, just cheap headline grabbing, picking on the poor while looking after the rich…
Lorna Gibbons
I am so pleased that you think it ‘regretful’ that some individuals will suffer, Please can you tell these ‘individuals’ how and where they are going to live? Tell their children to their faces why you agree that they should lose their home and friends. Please remember that many claiming housing benefit DO work. I am sure if people were better off working they would but would you also please tell me where all the jobs are coming from, considering that many more are going to be thrown unwillingly on to the benefit system? It is time that landlords were brought to account for charging extortionate rents. THEY are the ones milking the benefit system.
Chris Squires
Are people on benefis NOT normal? Where is this extra accommodation of smaller houses and in cheaper parts of town coming from? The people who are soon to lose their jobs will not be able to pay their rents and mortgages either.
I think most people will be astonished that it’s possible for a family to claim £26,000 in benefits. Generally speaking, most people dont really believe those Daily Mail scare-stories that family from hell X claim £50k a year in benefits. It will come as a shock to the Guardian-reading classes to hear that they might be true!
@tony Greaves – you are probably right in that it will be people in central london most affected.
But that raises the question of why taxpayers should be supporting people to live in the most expensive parts of London that they could never afford to live in themselves?
@Anne – people have years to prepare for a change. Do you think no-one should ever move?
KnittyFlitty: Did you ever consider how you would afford to bring up 6 children other than having to claim £31,000 in benefits from the state? I’m sorry to hear about your case, but it sounds like you should consider moving to a cheaper area. Given that the nation is broke I dont think it’s unreasonable for the tax-payer to ask this. As for picking on the poor while looking after the rich did you not notice the child benefit announcement from yesterday?
@Iain another nicely crafted balanced article kind of wish this one wasn’t though because I fully intended to write one making more clear the ‘Poor Law’ implications of this legislation as it stands.
Guardian claims that unemployed Lorry Driver in inner London with 3 kids will loose £7K and their arithmatic appears correct. That £7K can not rececovered by saving £200-£300 a month in rent and moving to outer London . The only way he could keep his family together is by moving to an unemployment blackspot and de facto never getting a job. Near deserted ex mining towns will become de facto extended Poor Houses dumping grounds for the unemployed. WHICH WOULD MEAN THEY ARE UNLIKELY TO EVER WORK AGAIN. Now if he had 4 or 5 children even that would be impossible and he would be on the street.
I am shocked that anyone in the Lib dems believe that ANYONE in the UK with a large family only receives an average wage . This is the most disengenious piece of spin I have heard since new Labour. Working or not benafits and tax credits push them to above average salary and rightly so. Without it working like that kids will go into care which will cost the goverment more .
This is not being emotive this is the logical conequence of how the policy described by Osbourne will work. It will split people of their dignity and split families apart.
IF PEOPLE DO NOT BELIEVE ME PLEASE TELL ME WHAT FACTS I HAVE MIS INTERPRATED.
IF PEOPLE DO BELIEVE ME PLEASE ADVISE ME HOW AS A PARTY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE CAN NOT SIMPLY CONDEMN THIS AS OUTRAGEOUS ?
Interested in all of your thoughts as if this sort of policy remains unchecked it is the sort of policy that could force more people to leave the party . Sadly i have the suspicious that Clegg has probibly already given it the go ahead (He was hinting at tough welfare reforms for the unemployed in his pre conference interviews).
SmcG
A lot of the benefit goes on housing costs, this goes directly to the buy to let barons. This is not cash in hand that is available to spend as one would like.
Where is all this cheap extra housing coming from? I think you will find that it is already taken which is the reason WHY councils were housing families in top end accommodation. Perhaps we can build shanty towns.
jayu
“What people fail to realise is the claimant does not get £26000 given to them cash in hand. What they are given cash in hand is the basic minimum that the state says they need to live on. Approximately £9 per day. The vast bulk of the £26000+ will be used to pay for housing cost.”
I think everyone understands that. The question that needs to be answered is “is it fair that tax payers should be asked to pay tens of thousands of pounds in rent for unemployed families?” I firmly believe that people on benefits should not receive more than they would get if in full time paid employment. Perhaps the minimum wage is too low, but certainly benefits should be less. If your £9 per day is true, and assuming child benefits of £5000 pa for 6 children, the housing benefit could still be over £1000 per month. How many hard working families can afford this? I’d struggle and after looking it up yesterday in the child benefit debate, I’m apparently in the top 10% of household incomes (yes, it was quite a surprise).
Utterly, triumphantly disgraceful.
How on Earth you expect to extricate yourselves from your Tory Masters in 2015 with such Right-wing zealousness is beyond me.
For the record – I don’t claim benefits, I don’t claim child benefit (despite having one child), I have never claimed any State subsidy, I earn a high salary. And I find these cuts horrifying – and just a start of things to come. Your claim to have ‘softened’ the Tories in power lies shattered at your feet. I have no regret for leaving this party.
What is frightening is how quickly the Lib Dems have become the party of Gideon Osborne. No discussion, no debate, just cold-hearted illiberal stereotyping of people on benefits followed by versions of “quite right too…serves ’em right…get them out of the Cities and into other areas…I don’t get that so why should they…” as if they choose to be on benefits. And if there’s any dissent – sprinkling healthy doses of “Gordon Brown…Labour’s cuts…we stopped private clamping companies clamping” gets thrown into the mix.
Gideon has convinced you its a lifestyle choice. He hasn’t convinced me.
@Colin Green
I repeat that NO large family can afford to live on one average wage . Large families on the average wage get it topped up by Child benefit and tax credits .
The unemplyment benefit is the only one that has not went up in real terms since thatcher . It is basic and megre and already makes it difficult to make ends meet. It seems you are quite happy to remove £7K or more from large families already living in poverty . Please clarify if I have misunderstood ?
…………………………………………………………….
For those that complain about how large some families are please clarify whether you are advocating extreme child policy (as an act of revenge on their parents) or do you want to go the whole way and have compulsory sterilization ? I’m sure these kids will be right chuffed at the Pupil Premium when they have no home to go to .
John Fraser,
Yes, it can be hard to live on the average wage and it is right that it is topped up with low pay benefits. I agree with you completely on this and in no way want to hurt low paid families. What I oppose is a case where the same family are better off on unemployment benefits than they are in paid work with low pay benefits. You should always be better of if you work than if you’re unemployed. Why would you work for a living and be worse off?
@ John fraser – you seem to be suggesting that people’s wages will be capped at 26k – so, if someone gets 24k from working, they can get no more than 2k in benefits. I don’t think this is the case – from what i understand fromt he announcment, it is rather that no one will get moer than 26k IN BENEFITS. That means if someone works and earns 24k, and gets 6k in benefits to top that up, that’s fine.
@Colin Green
If it’s a fair society we want, yes. If that’s the market rate, yes.
The government have stated that a single person over the age of 25, by law, needs £65.45 per week. This is for food, clothing, travel, domestic fuel costs, and general day to day living. That works out £9.35 per day. There is no need to query my figures, the information is readably available.
Also Child Benefit is taken into account when assessing claims. So the £26000 cap would include the £5000pa Child Benefit.
@ Cuse – capping child benefit for the middle classes was out policy going into this election, before any coalition with the Tories. It’s a way of spreading the pain, along with pursuing tax evaders. Added to this, alongside admittedly regressive measures such as increasing VAT (not our choice to raise money) we are helping those on low and middle incomes by increasing the tax threshold, thus further making work pay. Look at our tax and benefit policies in the round, and its a less simplistic picture than that which you paint.
@Dominic. Apologies – but you make my point.
Clegg stated categorically on public TV that he would not interfere with Universal benefits. He is in power and He has not capped child benefit as you state – he has removed Universality of it. But you don’t deal with that – you obfuscate. First you claim “we said we’d cap it” then you claim “but we’re raising the low paid out of tax” at the same time as accusing me of not seeing things in the round. Clegg said he’s protect universality. He hasn’t. Yet you do not answer that point.
Your argument seems to be that “we didn’t raise VAT so it’s not our problem” at the same time as saying “We’re in Coalition and we take responsibility” at the same time as “we will introduce future measures to make it fairer”. Guess what – if you lie with the Tories you take the credit for the decisions they + you take. If you look in the round – look in the entire round, not just at the Liberal round you think paints a positive picture.
Since being in power you have cut:
– Maternity allowances
– child tax credits
– the baby bond
– Child benefit
– and produced a three-year freeze in child benefit
all these cuts target children. Add into that:
– Housing benefit cuts
– Welfare Caps
– VAT rises
– Continued NI rises on workers not employers (which you could have reversed)
And you have literally made huge swathes of the needy more needy. As well as removing universality!
The £10k tax removal does not even begin to touch what you have done.
The electorate continues to leave you in their droves because you have lost your way. Your post proves that I’m afraid its true.
Mboy.
You said maybe we should move to a cheaper area. Do you know anywhere where I can rent a 3 bedroom property for less than £100 a week? Because I don’t! As I said, I live in a bog standard, 3 bedroom council maisonette and the rent is £98 a week.
I find it concerning that many here think the unemployed can suddenly move to a cheaper part of town…
How ?
You need a months rent, which is about £1300 a month for a 3 bed property in the cheap outer parts of London.
You need at least 5 weeks deposit, which is £1500
Then you need the money to move… lets go real cheap.. say £500
That is £3300 required before you get the keys to your nice cheap house.
The local authority ‘does not’ pay for deposits or advance rent. So I ask again… How are people supposed to move to somewhere cheaper ?
Oh , I get it … Their supposed to save really hard out of the £58 a week unemployment benefit ?
Of course they must also use that money to look for work, sign on , feed themselves , clothe themselves, pay bills… etc
So lets say they can save £2 a week to move to a cheaper area…
Problem solved , the “scrounger” can be out of your part of town and living in the slums within 1650 weeks !!!
Wow, that’s a mere 31 years and we will have them living where we want them. bloody scoungers 🙂
Ludicrous analysis by some above…
If you believe that people should move to cheaper accomodation when on benefits, please explain how ?
And I mean in detail please…
Capping total benefit entitlements is definitely right. Conversely, how can it possibly be right for a family in which no-one works to just sit back and receive money from the state that comes to more than the median wage of the country? This would be an act of injustice against all those people who live their lives responsibly, work hard and pay taxes to fund the state. In fact, in my opinion, a maximum of £26,000 is far too high – I would reduce the cap to nearer £15,000, and introduce it earlier, say in 2012. It is particularly infuriating when families with little income go on to have huge numbers of children (four, five, six, etc) and then expect the state to pick up the tab for their recklessness. Whereas other more responsible families limit themselves to a couple of children and pay their own way.
@Cuse: Yawn. Go back to LabourHome if you dont like it here.
@KnittyFlitty: If you are only claiming £5k max on housing benefit, what are you claiming the other £26,000 of benefits on?
Let’s please get away from the hysterical nonsense about sterilising people. No-one is advocating this and it is merely a transparent debating ploy. Am I right in thinking this is £26K net not gross before taxes are taken off? Maybe you lot are all southerners, but I can assure you that most people are getting less than this at least away from London
I am not sure if some sort of London weighting should be given. Bad idea, probably.
Oh and I forgot to mention contract fees…
I am employed and renting. I have to pay £70 a year just to get my contract renewed. So you can add that to the cost.
Just because the daily mail can find the odd person who milks the system, do not believe that is the norm. People on benefits have a hard enough life as it is.
The Coalition has created a ‘moral panic’ out of a tiny minority of so called benefit ‘scrounger’s. I would like to see them try and live on benefits for a month.
You want to improve the benefit system then the answer is simple. Provide my low cost housing. It used to be called a ‘council house’ back in the days… They don’t exist for new tenants any more. I was on a waiting list for 15 years and was no nearer the top of the list at the end then I was at the start. I removed myself from the pointless list.
You also need a job… yeah it’s that simple… provide jobs and cheap housing and people come off benefits.
But nobody likes the simple answer… No , people much prefer to make these people suffer and take away their dignity, their chance of employment and yes … even their home…
Liberal ? Yeah right !
@MBoy
A devastating debate, sinking a sword into the heart of anyone who disagrees with you.
And further into the abyss you fall…
@Terry
Check out the Right-wing media’s comments pages today on this.
You are to the right of all othem. In fact, you’re a little to the right of Genghis Khan based on that post.
In fact, you’re a little to the right of Genghis Khan based on that post.
Hahaha, I have to agree with you Cuse…
Some of the posts I’ve seen on here (LDV) recently may as well be written on Conservative home, next I’ll be reading about how workhouses weren’t so bad after all or replacing all benefits with food vouchers is a good idea, at this rate one may well believe there are just as many Tory trolls here as there are Labour ones. (actually I sincerely hope they are Trolls and not Lib Dems)
“capping child benefit for the middle classes was out policy going into this election, before any coalition with the Tories.”
It certainly wasn’t. I think you’re confusing child benefit and child tax credits. (To be fair, Vince Cable made the same mistake during the campaign, but it was afterwards made clear that he had spoken in error.)
Could the cheerleaders for social cleansing of inner cities also please explain who will be paying the costs caused by infrastructure pressures in suburban and rural authorities as families are forced outwards, particularly education and social services. Happy for Council Tax increases, to cover it I presume?
@Cuse
@Barry George
It is a sad indictment of the country today that merely for advocating responsible and rational behaviour one is accused of being “a little to the right of Genghis Khan”. First, acting responsibly is not a ‘left’ or ‘right’ issue. Second, where is the justice in expecting parents who restrict themselves to, say, two children and who may be just about keeping their heads above the water (financially) pay high taxes in order to maintain irresponsible parents with five or more children?
It’s difficult to see any kind of rationale for capping _total_ benefits, rather than individual benefits. In fact, as has been pointed out, it’s difficult to see what the mechanism for capping total benefits could be.
Most of the arguments in favour above actually amount to arguments for capping housing benefit. Maybe such an argument can be made, but obviously the effect of a cap on total benefit would be quite different – in effect it would impose a ceiling on housing benefit which was _lower_ for families that were receiving more in other benefits. For example, smaller families would be able to receive more in housing benefit than larger ones. I think that’s self-evidently absurd.
This is just a bit of crowd-pleasing nonsense for the Tory conference, and the party certainly should not have gone along with it.
Terry
You are not advocating responsible and rational behaviour , You are suggesting slash and burn. You came up with a nice number in your head and went with it
£15,000 you said
You clearly didn’t read post post directly above your own.
I am working, I live in a CHEAP 3 bed property in London.
My rent is £1300 a month
That is £15600 a year
Oh dear, if I lost my job then your suggested policy has just made me homeless. I wouldn’t even be able to make the rent, so bills and food are out too !
You think I should move if I lost my job ? Then please answer my comment posted 5th October 2010 at 3:41 pm. It’s the one above your own.
Thank’s for making me potentially homeless Terry, Most kind of you and all that…
@Terry
Please don’t take this as an attack or accusation of being Genghis Khan – I’m genuinely interested in how far you think a policy encouraging responsible family planning should go. Presumably you believe that at present there is a perverse incentive to have large families. If we accept this premise, how should we go about it removing it and encouraging smaller families? You suggest a cap of £15k – while this may deter some people from having more children (although I’m not convinced it would), what do you do about those that already have large families? Such a move would severely affect these children, through no fault of their own, and probably lead to greater costs via social services as these families disintegrate. Is that a price worth paying? Are you happy for some children to be plunged into poverty, as a punishment for their parents’ ‘recklessness’ and as a warning to others? Serious question.
@Terry
What you claim is ‘responsibility’ is just your opinion. It isn’t fact.
Your justice choice relies on everything being binary. You’re either an unemployed scrounger with 5 children or a responsible, upstanding member of society who dared not procreate.
It also resembles Chinese limits on childbirth numbers. It definitely restricts the choice of new children to those of of wealth.
The problem is that by imposing these limits, you continue to build + foster this awful sense of class divide even further. You also refuse to deal in the grey. Let me explain.
I may be a responsible father with 3 children. I may have a decent job, with a nice wife who has always looked after the kids. I may work in the South East and have a manageable mortgage. I may work in say…construction. With further capital spending, I may see my markets drying up. I may lose my job. As my industry shrinks, I may not be able to find another job. With VAT going up, I will not be able to buy as much for the money I have. I may not be able to pay the mortgage. I will have my benefits capped. I may have to sell my house (in negative equity as housing prices still fall). I may have to move to another part of the country. I may have to take my kids out of school. I may end up in a council house, sending my kids to a sink-estate school due to the local free school having diverted kids + funding away from existing state schools.
That’s the problem – a lack of imagination. It’s all fair and good reverting everything to you (the well-off) vs them (the benefit needy) arguments. But for those of us who care about things beyond ourselves – it is a horrifying prospect we face.
@ Terry
And that’s without mentioning your concern with how many children people decide to have. Maybe you would feel more at home living in China.
This policy proposal is just too dispiriting for words.
It completely fails to understand the housing market, the labour market, the way cities work, the benefit system and hardship that many already face. But it does provide grist to the mill for those who wish to vilify the poor and construct the majority of those who are materially disadvantaged as scroungers. Just at a time when there are likely to be a lot more of them as a result of the cuts. Convenient.
The way in which some of the debate over the deficit is deteriorating (not necessarily at LDV) as the details of policies emerge is quite depressing. Any time soon I’m expecting someone to suggest that it would be cheaper for the government if they just funding some one-way tickets for a particularly undesirable component of the poorer population to go ‘back where they came from’ . Then we know the debate is being conducted in the gutter alongside the British nationalist.
AlexM – This policy proposal is just too dispiriting for words.
Agreed.
AlexM – This policy proposal is just too dispiriting for words.
Seconded..
Sorry for going off topic but could the moderator please explain why my posts at 4.16 and 4.45 are ‘awaiting moderation’ have they been caught in a filter somewhere? if they have can you tell me why
@Barry George
I do appreciate the points that you are making with regard to the cost of housing, especially in London. The problem at present is that many landlords are charging grossly over-inflated rents and much of the taxpayers’ money paid out in housing allowance goes straight into their pockets. Consequently, I do not advocate a benefit cap in isolation (which perhaps I should have made clear previously) – amongst many other measures, I would limit the amount that landlords can charge in rent. Of course, one of the reasons why (in an unmanaged marketplace, as at present) landlords can charge such high rents is because demand outstrips supply, and the primary reasons for this are poor utilisation of the current housing stock (too many empty properties) and the fact that the UK is grossly overpopulated, which brings me full circle to the argument for not rewarding or subsidising irresponsible parents who self-indulgently have large numbers of children. We all pay the price for their unwillingness to act rationally in order to curb the current unsustainable population growth in this country (and indeed globally). Too many people are in denial or just burying their heads in the sand with regard to this issue.
Hear, hear Alex M
@Terry
With regard to large families are you suggesting Child Poverty in the extreme taking children into care or castrating the parents. ? If not none of what you say makes any sense . If you are suggesting any of these I very much hope you are not a Liberal democrat
@Terry
But you don’t say how this could be done:
“not rewarding or subsidising irresponsible parents who self-indulgently have large numbers of children”
without punishing the children just for being born.
Say, a couple on benefits has another child, through accident, design, not caring, whatever. Should the state simply say ‘sorry, no more money for you, you should have thought about the consequences’, even if that means the parents are unable to feed and clothe the child? Do we let the child starve as an example to others? Or should the child be taken away immediately on birth?
My household survives on annual outgoings of £1375 a month (£16,500) a year, with the rest of my and my partner’s income going into savings in the hope of eventually escaping the rent trap and buying a house; and we feel quite rich.
I can accept in London I might be paying twice as much in rent, but the cap and the lifestyle to which it would permit people doesn’t seem at all unreasonable.
@Dominic Curran
No thats a misunderstanding Dominic I wasn’t suggesting a cap of 26K on peoples wages I was mearly showing previous posters who were claiming that large working families may have to live on an average wage , that this assumption was based on a myth.
@Colin Green
“You should always be better of if you work than if you’re unemployed. Why would you work for a living and be worse off? ”
I full agree with you Colin thats why I am desperately hoping Ian Duncan Smith is actaually going to come up with the goods to make work pay. To be fair to IDS I read in the Guardian that his ‘think tank’ are dismayed by these caps. But when someone is on a minimal benefit the way to do it is through IDS’s incentives not though the mentality of the ‘Work House’ . I find it most worrying that so far only IDS’s think tank has urged cautions . WHERE HAVE ALL OUR MPs AND MINISTERS GONE .
@Terry
I do appreciate the points that you are making with regard to the cost of housing
Thank you for that.
Consequently, I do not advocate a benefit cap in isolation… …. I would limit the amount that landlords can charge in rent
Good, Please do so BEFORE you start talking about capping benefits. The claimant does not gain anything because of inflated rents, just the landlord.
What you are now saying is that due to the greed of landlords (not benefit scroungers) the system isn’t working.
So if you accept that inflated rents are the problem then why not go after the landlords and leave the claimant alone. The claimant does not gain or lose by the price of his rent but he is severely affected by any cuts in welfare. We are talking about making the poor pay for the greed of landlords.
Why should the unemployed be capped before landlords are ?
Surely the solution is to go after the landlords and then there is no need to cap welfare. The unemployed aren’t getting huge cheques to spend at the leisure, they are simply paying their rent.
You are not arguing that an unemployed person on £58 per week is getting too much money surely ?
which brings me full circle to the argument for not rewarding or subsidising irresponsible parents who self-indulgently have large numbers of children
A very dangerous road to go down, it is one small step away from economic discrimination in which children are the right of the wealthy. It becomes nothing more than a form of eugenics defined by social class and income.
We may well ‘think’ that some people are wrong to have children in certain circumstances, but it is without question wrong to suggest government policy be based on such ideas.
Where we would stop?
Prevent disabled couples having children ?
People with low IQ’s ?
They too put an economic strain on the system but you are not calling that into question.
I do hear your point but I can not bring myself to support such an ideology. A person must be free to live their life in the way they choose and that includes how many children they have.
The state must not discriminate against a person based on wealth.
“What I oppose is a case where the same family are better off on unemployment benefits than they are in paid work with low pay benefits. You should always be better of if you work than if you’re unemployed.”
That’s what is called rigid, ideological, dogmatic thinking. The sort of thing we used to condemn. The sort of talk which superficially sounds good when you are in the bar, but just hasn’t bothered to engage with boring details of the real world and the lives of the people who will get hurt.
When people in Central London lose their jobs, you’re going to chuck them out of their homes as well. You’re going to dump them on Teesside where they can afford the rent, but stand no chance of ever getting jobs again.
@David Allen
Well said.
And if LDV is to be believed – that is not just liberal and progressive, its why we voted Lib Dem.
Barry,
In the natural world animals don’t get benefits, the number of offspring is defined by the success of the parents and their access to resources; favourable characteristics create favourable conditions; inability to compete produces less favourable outcomes. Are we humans really so different?
@ Andrew Tennant
Are we humans really so different?
Are you serious ?
Don’t answer yet , I am busy raping the woman up the road I fancy and killing the rival up the road who I don’t like the smell of… Then I might pop over to the school and steal the children’s food from their lunch boxes because, well , I am bigger and stronger than them…
Animal instinct and all that !
Of course we are different…
It really is quite astonishing what some Lib Dem supporters consider acceptable opinions these days.
Is the “law of the jungle” really now seen as a principle we should be emulating as a society?
Andrew Tennant wrote –
In the natural world animals don’t get benefits, the number of offspring is defined by the success of the parents and their access to resources; favourable characteristics create favourable conditions; inability to compete produces less favourable outcomes. Are we humans really so different?
Please tell me you are joking. if your not your in the wrong party, actually I can’t think of a party where a view like that is acceptable, well maybe one, it existed in Germany before WWII
Anthony
Thank you for that. You answered the question far more tactfully than me. Sarcasm got the better of me. Please take no offence Andrew. I was highlighting a point, not attacking you.
Gosh, reading some of the posts I thought I had clicked on to the Daily Mail’s site by mistake
The central principle since Beverage has been to each according to his need.
How we assess the need is where the Lib Dems and Tories part company.
They have never got beyond thinking that the poor are merely sturdy beggars
and lead swingers.
The Tory position is that the success of past generations should provide comfort and success for the present descendants; on this I do not agree with them.
Do I believe we should live in a meritocracy where hard work and ability bring greater rewards than idleness or no desire to better yourself – absolutely and unashamedly.
Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Andrew tennant
Equality of opportunity eh?
Does that apply to the Married Couple’s benefit?
How is this Coalition looking to equalise opportunity? I htought they’d briefed today that “yup, everything we do is a massive risk”.
Cuse,
Sorry, I only get a vote in Liberal Democrat policy (and even then the masses don’t necessarily agree with me); despite my protestations I’m yet to get even the Lib Dems to just roll over and accept my opinions as gospel, might be a while yet for the Tories too…
@Andrew Tennant.
“the number of offspring is defined by the success of the parents and their access to resources”
And are you suggesting this is a desirable state for humanity too? If so, are you suggesting, as I asked Terry earlier, that it is acceptable for the state to say to a couple on benefits who is deemed to have recklessly borne another child – ‘sorry, no more money for you, you should have thought about the consequences’, even if that means the parents are unable to feed and clothe the child? Should the child be left to starve as an example to others? Or should the child be taken away immediately on birth? Unfortunately philosophising about a belief in meritocracy doesn’t resolve this basic dilemma.
Andrew
No further clarification on your previous point then ?
You have moved swiftly from the ‘law of the jungle’ to a point about meritocracy, of which I doubt many here would disagree.
We all believe that work should bring greater rewards than idleness. But who exactly are the idle ? (Daily Mail articles aside)
Are you suggesting that the unemployed are idle ?
I know people who have applied for hundreds of jobs without success in this current economic climate. They are not idle, far from it. They are restricted by a lack of employment opportunities due to a world wide economic recession in a market that lacks any sustainable manufacturing industry and are in many cases they are in that position because of the errors of others ie. the banks.
Please don’t fall for the charms of the ‘benefit scrounger’ lobby. You are a Liberal Democrat not a Tory. You believe in meritocracy and such a belief can only be attained by equal opportunity for all. Stigmatising and taking away the bread line of those out of work is not meritocracy, it is selection by economic means, not by ability.
Why not pursue an agenda of making sure the jobs are there for people to take, before capping benefits. That would be a far more noble cause in my opinion.
@Peter
I wouldn’t want a child to suffer, but on a fundamental level I don’t believe personally in child benefit; not least because for environmental reasons I’d support the birth rate, in general, being lower. How would you square the circle?
Would you consider it acceptable to 1) Offer an extensive programme of contraception and financial planning advice 2) To make available, but not compulsory, financial incentives or one off baby bonds for individuals to temporarily (fixed term implants) or permanently inhibit their fertility?
@Barry
No, I don’t think the unemployed are idle; I’ve been (briefly) unemployed myself and only bounced back so quickly as a result of my fortuitously high standard of education. I think the government should invest more in giving people first and second chances to get educated and get earning; and to intervene where there is a supply side market failure in the availability of affordable housing. But do I think someone who has never worked or chooses not to is equal to someone who has paid into the system or who tries hard but is unsuccessful; no I don’t. Those who contribute should get more of a share, those who don’t should not be comfortable.
@Andrew,
I’m not sure it’s possible to resolve entirely. If the state does want to influence family size I’d certainly prefer incentives over sanctions. But I think we probably differ fundamentally on the desirability of a declining birth rate. Given the projected dependency ratio by 2050, I’m more worried about the ability of a shrinking workforce to support an ageing population (though increased immigration might alleviate this a bit).
But I guess that’s going WAY off the topic of this thread (sorry, moderators)
Andrew
But do I think someone who has never worked or chooses not to is equal to someone who has paid into the system or who tries hard but is unsuccessful; no I don’t.
You are aware that you are talking about a very tiny minority of people?
Those that have never worked, (excluding the severely disabled, the severely mentally ill and those with acute learning difficulties) who are they then?
If you are not talking about anyone who has contributed to society then who are you left with?
Contribution based Job seekers allowance is only paid to those who have contributed taxes in advance. So that excludes the vast majority of unemployed people from your displeasure because as you say, Those who contribute should get more of a share.
Of course some full time carers have never worked. They are busy looking after the sick and vulnerable in society. That saves the economy a lot of money. They may not have paid taxes but they sure have ‘contributed’.
But should they also not be comfortable ?
It all depends on what you consider to be acceptable evidence of ‘paying into the system’
Believe me, if you have never worked then you really do not get a lot of help from the government. You get a extremely low level of benefit. You (quite rightly) get forced onto schemes to get you back in to work and life is not pleasant at all.
In fact you could say that life for such is people is far from comfortable.
So the world you wish for is already here and the tiny minority of people getting money for nothing are already suffering under the current system.
So why encourage a Tory right wing idea of going after the 99 percent genuine claimants who have contributed, are entitled, are not idle and in most cases are not unemployed through a choice of their own…
Isn’t life hard enough for them already…
Anyone who chooses a life of less than £60 per week and the indignity of begging to the DWP every fortnight over paid employment at minimum wage, probably has serious mental health issues.
The Tory right likes to make out like there are millions of such people.
That is a myth…
Sorry Barry, which 99% of benefit claimants are affected by this £26k cap; I was under the impression a mere 50,000 families were in such a category?
It’s remarkable how many posts have shown up to argue for unemployed people living in the expensive parts of London to be given large benefits to support their comfortable middle-class lifestyles.
Personally, I want to know what those people are proposing we cut to pay for it.
However, my personal favorite is the one who complained that unemployed people might have to move to cheaper places (ie, pretty much anywhere in the country other than central London) where they won’t be able to get a job. The implication there being that they currently live in places where they can get a job – so why are they unemployed?
Andrew
Sorry Barry, which 99% of benefit claimants are affected by this £26k cap; I was under the impression a mere 50,000 families were in such a category?
A mere 50,000 families eh ?
Thats an estimated 240,000 people. Nearly quarter of a million people Andrew ! (based on your own supplied figure)
You call that mere ?
So quarter of a million people will be affected, but don’t worry it’s small change ?
Barry, it’s substantially less than 99% of claimants.
Andrew, inclined to agree.
@Andrew
“I wouldn’t want a child to suffer, but on a fundamental level I don’t believe personally in child benefit; not least because for environmental reasons I’d support the birth rate, in general, being lower. How would you square the circle?
Would you consider it acceptable to 1) Offer an extensive programme of contraception and financial planning advice 2) To make available, but not compulsory, financial incentives or one off baby bonds for individuals to temporarily (fixed term implants) or permanently inhibit their fertility?”
This is dangerous and frightening talk. Exactly how many people on benefits have large families anyway (a minority) or how many who could previously support their children will be thrown onto the benefit system? Will you offer sterilisation to them too? What begins as an ‘offer’ could turn rapidly into compulsion. Who would you like to sterilise, the woman, man and/or the children? As a mother I feel sick to the core after reading this.
Anne, then you’ll be pleased it’s not government policy. I specifically said I was against compulsion, instead questioning whether it would be morally acceptable to present a financial incentive and choice. You vote no; anyone else?
I thought (based on what the Beeb tell me) that the Child Benefit cap would be applied to the higher rate taxpayers – ie, the wealthy. Personally, I think that if you have enough money to pay for your kiddies shoes, clothes, toys, etc without needing state subsidy, you should not be entitled to it. Give it to the people who really deserve it – poor families and part time, low income workers like me.
Frankly, some of the Labour whining just reminds me how much they’ve lost touch with the working class.
@Andrew Suffield
EMPLOYED people in London and elsewhere will have to move, because their rents are ridiculously high and then will have to leave that job if they move to a cheaper place/town. How are the councils in these ‘cheaper’ places going to cope with the influx when they are already struggling with housing and jobs will also be scarce?
Are you at work? Are you sure it is secure?
Andrew,
Even within your ‘law of the jungle’ analogy you can’t be seriously suggesting that 240,000 people can be categorised by the word ‘mere’ ?
However, despite the fact that you didn’t justify your earlier comment with regard to comparing human’s with animals. I will justify mine.
I said So why encourage a Tory right wing idea of going after the 99 percent genuine claimants who have contributed, are entitled, are not idle and in most cases are not unemployed through a choice of their own…
I was addressing current coalition policy on the unemployed and encouraging you not to believe the right wing hype.
For example, 100 percent of unemployed people will lose 10 percent of their housing benefit after being unemployed for 12 months. That’s 100 percent, not 99 percent…
Sorry for my underestimation!
Every single unemployed person who is unable to find work within 12 months will be affected. Many will be made homeless.
Now in return would you clarify your definition of mere ? If a quarter of a million people are ‘mere’ then please tell me how many people would need to be affected by this cap to be significant ?
Rosalind
They are not redirecting the Child Benefit to you!!! It is the Welfare Cap that you need to be looking at as this may well affect you. I hope it does not.
Arguments about whether the poor should be expected to move to cheaper areas (which had already started as a result of the HB restrictions announced in the budget) are not simply about individual circumstances. They are also entail issues of social identificationa and cohesion. If policy manages to engineer even greater social segregation then that increases the tendency for the rich and the poor to live entirely separate live, rather than just parallel lives with propinquity. This will reduce any form of social identification and accelerate the pressure for further welfare state retrechment because the rich can even more successfully disconnect from the undesirable ‘other’. That is even assuming that the sort of mobility required by the policy is possible.
@Andrew Tennanf
What do you vote? You have not clarified that.
@Anne
I get bugger all in welfare payments, anyway. Interesting that you only responded to my frivolous little remark at the end.
Rosalind
Frankly, some of the Labour whining…
Really ? I haven’t seen any Labour whining in this thread….
Who are the “Labour whining” people please ?
I am sure we would all love to know…
@Barry George
Not necessarily this thread. Plenty of it over at the Graunaid though – in the comments section.
@Rosalind
I’m sure Anne can speak for herself but I was under the impression that she was correcting your perception that this was about Child Benefit, because it isn’t.
Anne, Lib Dem, it’s quite widely known.
@Rosalind
Not necessarily this thread…
Fair enough, Some people on LDV like to confuse dissent with “Labour trolls” . I understand (now) that you are talking about another web site….
@Rosalind
So no tax credits then?
Oh Rosalind, why are you so hostile against me, I am not your enemy and have more in common with you than you think.
I responded to your point about child benefit being given to those who need it. Was that a frivolous point you made? I have nothing to do with Labour or any other party as I am back to being a floating voter. The welfare cap is what is being discussed here, a discussion thread on Child Benefit is elsewhere on this site, there are a lot of points being made there that you will like. See you there!
Andrew Tennanf
No, not that but what you vote on the points you said I voted no to.
I am genuinely astonished at the number of people coming on here, claiming to be Lib Dems… arguing that because they live in an expensive home costing >£1300 per month, that if they lose their job the tax-payer should turn up and simply hand over the cash to cover all their bills. I am genuinely gob-smacked.
Do you know what my mum taught me? She taught me, repeatedly, “Dont take on responsibilities you couldnt deal with if you lost our job.” I always thought this was common sense, and I thought that everyone was taught this. However, it become clear when every Tom, Dick and Harry, took on 100% mortgages at ridiculous prices that actually this idea was now non-existent in the middle-classes. Then the housing crash. But guess what – now it’s clear that this principle is apparently non-existent in the working class too! It seems people go out and rent an expensive flat they have no hope of dealing with if they lose their job and have to live on less money for a period of time, and now there’s the expectation that the tax-payer will cough-up the cash, even though the country is broke.
I was starting to think that this forum is now infested with Labour trolls. But now I realise it’s much worse than that. In fact it’s clear that there is a massive and genuine entitlement culture out there – even among Lib Dems it seems. Living within your means and no taking on risks you couldnt cope with if things went tits up are nowhere to be seen. The state is no longer to be just a safety net; now the state must be an aspiration net, to safely catch everyone whose great ideas fail for some reason. I can assure you guys that that is NOT what Beveridge or any other of the welfare founding fathers envisaged, and you are kidding yourself (but not us) if you think it is.
I have become so disillusioned with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats that I have joined the Labour Party. I feel ashamed that I voted for the LibDems and apologise to all those who will suffer under this Coalition. Rest assured that I will never vote for them again. Just for the record, I don’t claim any state subsidy and don’t have children so these cuts don’t affect me personally.
Good for you BB. If you prefer a party of illegal wars, torture, rendition, stripping civil liberties and the rest to a party stepping up to the plate to try and fix the economy it is quite right that you join Labour.
MBoy
This endless mantra of “illegal wars” in relation to Labour really does take the biscuit, considering that the Lib Dems are now in coalition with a party that wholeheartedly supported the invasion of Iraq.
Have you people all had your sense of irony surgically removed or something?
Andrew Tennant,
“Would you consider it acceptable to … make available, but not compulsory, financial incentives …for individuals to temporarily (fixed term implants) or permanently inhibit their fertility?”
“In the natural world animals don’t get benefits, the number of offspring is defined by the success of the parents and their access to resources”
Presumably you vote Lib Dem because the BNP expelled you for extremism?
This is all too depressing, until we address the issue of the lack of social housing, we (the country, I’m not a Lib Dem) shouldn’t be talking of capping benefits, private landlords cropped up as an alternative because councils weren’t allowed to build new homes.
The figures being thrown around are misleading because of that alone.
“It’s one thing to see a story in the Daily Mail or Express about some family that’s been put up in a million pound mansion by their local authority, and to think that there must be a better way. It’s a different matter to figure out what that better way actually is.”
Spot on. The coalition are starting to scare me, I accept that the Tories were always going to scare me, my hope was that the Lib Dems would reign them in.
@BB “I have become so disillusioned with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats that I have joined the Labour Party. I feel ashamed that I voted for the LibDems and apologise to all those who will suffer under this Coalition. Rest assured that I will never vote for them again. Just for the record, I don’t claim any state subsidy and don’t have children so these cuts don’t affect me personally.”
First of all, don’t feel ashamed for voting Lib Dem, I did too, we both did it for a reason and at the time we felt it was a justifiable reason.
Not long after the election, I was at the stage where I would have chased a Lib dem canvasser off my lawn, however we need to take a deep breath and look at what happened.
The Lib Dems had to go into coalition, otherwise their big wish for electoral reform would have been dead and buried, we have to appreciate this, a party can’t say no to forming a coalition when they support a system that is more likely to lead to them.
What has irritated me is watching the Lib Dems cave on some big issues, such as how quickly the deificit needs to be cut, this was one of the reasons I voted for them, to watch them crumble, yes, it doesn’t encourage me to vote for them again, but what are the alternatives, Labour had lost their way and The Tories are …well The Tories.
Reading The Times recently I saw an article by Kenneth Baker, Lib Dems should read this, he was almost gloating about how good a deal the Tories got and how absurd AV is and laughing about Ed Milliband being elected by such a system, he’s not the only Tory to go down this path.
We live in scary but interesting times, if The Lib Dems can fight their corner a bit more vigourously on the big issues, this coalition could be good for the country and I say that as someone whom, like you, was awfully tempted to join the Labour party in recent weeks, but there’s a reason we both didn’t vote Labour at the last election and whereas I admire you joining them, I myself will take my time and see whether they really are changing their ways, because Labour lost the plot in their last term in government.
Mboy
I am genuinely astonished at the number of people coming on here, claiming to be Lib Dems… arguing that because they live in an expensive home costing >£1300 per month, that if they lose their job the tax-payer should turn up and simply hand over the cash to cover all their bills. I am genuinely gob-smacked.
Firstly you are talking about my post so why not name me, I don’t bite.
Second £1300 is a very cheap rent for this rather run down part of London. The moderators can see by my IP where I live and I assure you that there are not any cheaper properties within 10 miles of here
Third you seem to forget that I am a tax payer. I have paid taxes all my adult life and if I was unfortunate enough to lose my job then I have paid more into the system then I would ever get back.
What absurdity will you suggest next ? That we shouldn’t get treatment at an NHS hospital even though I have paid National insurance all my life because the mystery ‘tax payer’ who in this case happens to be myself will have to pay up.
Why do you believe taxes are for ?
Do you think they are just funds for the rich boys to play with when they send young men and women off to die in wars. A war that David Cameron supported…
The whole point of the system is that you pay into the pot when you are working and if you fall on hard times then the system helps you back on your feet.
That is how the system works.
If the government wants to back out of their side of the deal then fine. Stop charging me taxes.
My Local authority taxes me for local services. Street cleaning, fixing lights and pot holes and collecting my rubbish. That’s called council tax. It is not funded by income tax.
Now income tax, why do we pay that ?
I have paid taxes for decades… possibly longer than you. So Mboy, what are they for ?
A Governments first responsibility is the protection of it’s citizens. The poor, the sick, the elderly, the unemployed, they are all in need of protection (a safety net) and they have paid for it in advance so what’s your problem ?
A Government that fails to protect the vulnerable is not worthy of it’s name.
! It seems people go out and rent an expensive flat they have no hope of dealing with if they lose their job and have to live on less money for a period of time
Do you live in the real world ?
Firstly it is not a flat it is a three bedroom home.
Secondly it is a home I provide for my children.
Third there is nowhere cheaper so it was this house or the streets and I already live in the poor part of London so no point moving me there, I’m already here.
Of course I could always explain to my kids that we are moving to live under a bus shelter because Mboy’s , mother said that we shouldn’t have a house (any house) because we couldn’t pay for it if I lost my job..
Er, excuse me, I couldn’t afford to live anywhere according to your bizarre rule. Trust me I would love a nice cheap house. You think I want to be paying £1300 a month. It simple, there was and is no choice if I want to house my children..
Next, there are no council houses. As I said I was on the waiting list for 15 years. Either get over that fact or do something useful and encourage the government to build some.
! It seems people go out and rent an expensive flat they have no hope of dealing with if they lose their job and have to live on less money for a period of time
There you go again. Please tell me the alternative ? If my entire family lived in a single room 6ft by 6ft I still couldn’t afford the rent if I lost my job. Don’t you get it ? This is the real world. You need housing, you take the cheapest you can find in the cheapest area you can find and go for it… The alternative is you and your family are homeless.
In fact it’s clear that there is a massive and genuine entitlement culture out there – even among Lib Dems it seems.
Damn right there is. You think I pay my taxes for fun. The street goes both ways. I pay and I pay and if hard times come I will not put my family out on the street I will claim what I am entitled to until I get back on my feet again…
There is a man who lives near me with no arms and no legs. I demand that this poor soul is supported by the welfare state. I expect you believe he should roll off his backside, learn to write with his mouth and get a job (bloody scrounger).
. The state is no longer to be just a safety net; now the state must be an aspiration net, to safely catch everyone whose great ideas fail for some reason.
Great ideas ? Yeah right !
Having the cheapest home in town (and any nearby town’s too) is a great idea is it ? Or is it a necessity
Paying taxes and expecting nothing in return is a great idea is it ?
Let it be noted that providing the cheapest affordable housing for my children was a bad move in the opinion of Mboy’s mother…
Please someone return this party to sanity… There are crazy people here behaving like thatcherite Tories.
Power Gone to your head Mboy ?
If I wanted the right wing propaganda line I would have read the Daily Mail not LDV…
Oh David, how incredibly witty and not at all insightful…
Possibly, but how is that relevant? The benefits cap is for unemployed people only.
I happen to be flat hunting in London right now. £1300 is not cheap.
10 miles covers most of Greater London. I can tell you that I have very definitely been looking at places significantly cheaper than £1300/month. A little while ago I saw a huge 3-bed flat in Streatham at £1050/month (sadly the location didn’t work for me). That is what cheap rents in London are like.
And now we get to the problem. In a city where almost everybody lives in flats, you feel entitled to a whole house, which are significantly more expensive.
I would like to thank the posters on this site for convincing me never to vote Lib Dem again. I honestly never realised how right wing a large percentage of Lib Dem members were. Its certainly not the impression you get when the Lib Dems coming knocking on my door for my vote at election time. You and the Tory party truly are a match made in heaven.
As an occasional lurker and poster I have to share vince’s view – there are some astonishingly unpleasant comments on here.
Imagine if you will a young family in Bath, on of the places identified by C4 as being “over the limit”, both parents in lowish paid work but unable to afford a mortgage. They rent, privately – (as there are over 20,000 on the social housing waiting list), but are desperately trying to save for a mortgage. One of them loses their job – they become entitled to Housing Benefit.
The current system acts, as it should, as a safety net. They can stay in their rented home until a new job is found, Their (modest) savings are below the present cut off. All of their rent is paid. In four months a new jobs is found. The welfare state has performed its function.
In the proposed system those four months become a living nightmare. The Housing Benefit does not cover their rent, they are forced to rely on their savings – the prospect of ever buying a home receeds – instead of focusing on finding a new job they are looking for a cheaper home – closest cheaper city is Bristol – away from family support network, children’s schools etc. Arguements about money ensue – you all know the rest….welfare state fails.
Is this worth it in order to save a modest amount of money and get some Daily Mail headlines?
@MBoy
I have never heard anything so irrational. You propose that no one should take on any commitments they could not pay after losing their jobs. This would mean people would live scared pathetic little lives never comiting to children , families or houses .
You then use the rediculously emotive word ‘;entitlement culture,’ rahet than using the correct term national insurance . It is the whole essence of having a safety net that allows people to take responsible ‘risks’ in business or life . Risks such as buying a house having children or setting up a business .
You seem to know nothing about the parties tradition for fairness and social justice through Grommond Thorop steel Ashdown Kennedy and Campbell. How long have you been in the party ….and if for some time how have you missed all these things ?
“I would like to thank the posters on this site for convincing me never to vote Lib Dem again. I honestly never realised how right wing a large percentage of Lib Dem members were.”
But the more I read, the more I’m convinced that the rabid “loyalists” who post here are _not_ typical of Lib Dem members (indeed, one of the most vociferous pro-coalition posters turned out not to be a member at all a little while ago). YouGov’s recent poll of party members showed only about 30% strongly in favour of the coalition, with about 50% more only “tending” to approve, and in a hypothetical hung parliament after the next election, significantly more would favour a deal with Labour than with the Tories, other things being equal.
The irony is that while they probably think they are fighting the good fight and doing their bit for the party, their tabloid-style right-wing ranting probably does more harm than good. Not that I’ve ever thought comments posted on blogs have much influence on anyone …
@ Andrew Suffield
You are correct that 3 acceptable 3 bed accomodation is available in London for £1050
the guardian analogy made the 3 kid family and unemployed Lorry driver £7K worse off on a £1300 pound rent . Your new rent would save him £3K . Baring in Mind his income has already been calculated as the minumum needed to surive in a dignified way …. where are you proposing he finds the extra £4K ……or deep down don’t you really care ???? Give the kids a pupil premiun and let the parents starve or get ill on stress … Great for the doorsteps Andrew.
“the more I read, the more I’m convinced that the rabid “loyalists” who post here are _not_ typical of Lib Dem members”
Yes, I agree. I hesitate to use the word “troll”, but I suspect some of them are paid or unpaid Conservative supporters who want to attract right-wingers into the LDs and scare left-wingers away. They don’t look like the normal people who deliver the Focuses in my area.
But – “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. To all those local Focus deliverers who glumly watch the Tory conference and conclude that a share in power might make it all worthwhile – That means you!
I also am worried by some very unfeeling posts and somehow I feel they are dehumanising those on benefits. We are talking about men, women and children here you know, I voted Lib Dem in the hope that there was going to be something new in politics Unfortunately, what I was sold on the doorstep did not match reality. Pity we can not go to Trading Standards! In some posts there is absolutely no compassion for anybody and this is totally unhealthy in what is supposed to be a civilised society.
Anthony Aloysius St wrote –
“But the more I read, the more I’m convinced that the rabid “loyalists” who post here are _not_ typical of Lib Dem members (indeed, one of the most vociferous pro-coalition posters turned out not to be a member at all a little while ago)”
I truly hope your right on that score, otherwise I’ll start to believe that the ‘assimilation’ of the Lib Dems is almost complete and any vestige of a separate identity, well forget it
Andrew Suffield
Nice attempt at clutching at straws but it is usually prudent to keep quite when you don’t have all the facts
I said “ The moderators can see by my IP where I live and I assure you that there are not any cheaper properties within 10 miles of here “
You said…
A little while ago I saw a huge 3-bed flat in Streatham at £1050/month
First , I don’t live within 10 miles of Streatham so my point is as valid now as it was before
Second, I work here so you need to add £141 a month travel expsenses if I was to move to Streatham.
That alone almost completely nullifies any net gain from moving and increases my daily travel by 3 hours a day
Third, I need to be home to look after my children after school which mean’s I would need to leave work 1 and a half hours early each day to be home for my kids. That now puts me at a net loss. That is assuming my boss would let me leave early every day, which of course he wouldn’t. So yes I could move there but I would then be unemployed. That defies the hold point don’t you agree ?
So it is cheaper for me and the economy to live here then it would be to move to a £1050 a month property in Streatham…
Please do not assume for it only makes you look foolish. It is my life and my income. If it really was cheaper in reality for me to live in Streatham then don’t you think I would be living there already !
You said And now we get to the problem. In a city where almost everybody lives in flats, you feel entitled to a whole house,
First, It is my income from my employment so yes I am entitled to whatever I want. To suggest otherwise shows extreme arrogance from you. Are you the income police ? You think you can tell people how and where to live ? Please keep your opinions on the details of my personal life to yourself until you are armed with enough facts not to look as incredibly stupid as you do.
Second, There are no 3 bedroom flats round here None , zilch. You think I throw £1300 a month away when there is a cheaper option ?
You are insulting my intelligence which really means that you are insulting your own intelligence.
@ Anthony
But the more I read, the more I’m convinced that the rabid “loyalists” who post here are _not_ typical of Lib Dem members
I have to agree. I am shocked at the rabid right wing idea’s that supposed Liberals Democrat’s write on this site.
If many of them are not Tories already, then they damn well should be…
@Anthony et al
Over the last few months on this site there have been many threads that have taken a detour into debating whether contributions have come from labour trolls – perhaps there have been too many people looking in the wrong direction?
I think the current thread crystallises the concerns of many people over the direction that the debate is heading or the terrain on which it is conducted. Concerns will no doubt be compounded by today’s Torygraph’s placing Nick Clegg at No 3 in its most influential right-wingers and claiming him for their own (those who sup with the Devil …).
Yet this thread, and others generated in response to announcements at the Tory conference, have included some very clear and passionate statements of a more recognisable L-D position. The revolution starts now? The bid to reclaim a more civilised and enlightened approach.
@Anne
Oh, I wasn’t being hostile to you. And I didn’t assume you were a Labour voter. Sorry if that’s the way it came across.
@Jayu
Nope. No tax credits, as a single person needs to be working 30 hours a week to get them. As I’m only part time, I don’t get.
I’m a pro-coalition Lib Dem, and I have misgivings about this proposal. I don’t know the details, so I can’t comment in detail, but my guess is that this is political posturing by George Osborne, and one of those unpleasant things we have to swallow in order to get other policies into legislation.
The most significant benefit is housing benefit. As this already capped last June, I wonder how much difference this announcement will make. If that is true, then it’s mostly gesture politics, announced in order to placate a Tory conference. But a gesture policy which could have unintended consequences.
As to why Lib Dems in a thread like this come over as right wing, I think there are two reasons. Firstly, loyal, but left-leaning Lib Dems, will just avoid commenting, and will confine their criticisms to the private member’s forum. Secondly, threads like this can be very confrontational, which tends to make people on both sides harden to more extreme positions.
If we don’t like this, both sides of the debate need to try to encourage the moderates, by responding to their comments with a conciliatory tone, and resisting the urge to react to the more confrontational posters.
“The most significant benefit is housing benefit. As this already capped last June, I wonder how much difference this announcement will make.”
It seems to me that it’s when the overall benefit cap is compared with the previously announced cap on housing benefit that it becomes most nonsensical.
For example, the cap on housing benefit for a three-bedroomed property is £340 a week. If a family were receiving that amount of housing benefit, the overall cap of £500 a week implies that it could receive no more than £160 a week, or £8320 a year, to cover all its other living expenses.
For a larger family, living in a four-bedroomed property, the housing benefit cap will be £400 a week. For a family receiving that amount of housing benefit, the overall cap would imply it could receive no more than £5200 a year to cover all its other expenses! It seems nonsensical.
In effect, it would presumably imply a _much_ more restrictive cap on housing benefit for larger families than was announced in the emergency budget.
George
Firstly, loyal, but left-leaning Lib Dems, will just avoid commenting
And..
<i If we don’t like this, both sides of the debate need to try to encourage the moderates
If the loyal left-leaning Lib Dems avoid commenting then is it fair to say that by your admission, there a few (if any) moderates here to encourage ?
I think the solution is for the left leaning Lib Dems to come out of their comfortable stress free Members forum and start standing up for what they believe in.
Out here in the public web site the right of the party are running riot and the only real voices of dissent are coming from non members.
If the left of the party really is standing up for itself in the echo chamber of the member’s forum then please encourage them to come out from the dark and speak up.
Maybe then us ‘non members’ wouldn’t have to fight so hard against the clear and dangerous domination of the party by the right , as can be clearly seen in the public face of LDV that we all read here every day.
The silence of half a party does not bode well for the current state of the Liberal Democrats. Half are running amuck whilst the other half hides in the shadows.
A sense of balance on LDV with both sides of the divide speaking up would temper us non members and prevent what appears to be a giant chasm splitting the party in two.
I appreciate the fact that you come out here and show your face George. Please try to encourage others to do so also.
Sorry for my bad formatting…
Is not the welfare cap also aimed to force traditional Labour voters out of the city constituencies where the Tories have not been able to gain seats?
@ George Kendall
“…..and one of those unpleasant things we have to swallow in order to get other policies into legislation.”
Sorry, I do not understand this. Swallow it, are we collateral damage then? What other policies will put people back into their homes?
Sorry, Barry. I don’t want to be confrontational. But to make my point clearly, maybe I need to be more blunt.
I don’t think it’s just the right of the party that are running riot. From the point of view of a pro-coalition Lib Dem, admittedly, there’s a dearth of measured, conciliatory comments from pro-coalition Lib Dems, but I feel there’s a similar dearth from the other side too.
When you talk about “fighting so hard”, I think that’s the root cause of the problem.
Pro-coalition people feel that the smallest admission that they don’t like some coalition policies will be seized on by tribal opponents to denounce the coalition. So they don’t offer those concessions.
Anti-coalition people feel that if they say something nice about what the coalition are doing, it will similarly be seized on.
So we end up with a debate with megaphones, and everyone thinking it’s a battle.
And, because a robust post is easy to interpret as an angry attack, even posts by thoughtful nice people, can come over as intimidating and unpleasant.
Thankfully, that doesn’t always happen. There have been some excellent threads on LDV, where people have felt free to say what they really think. But, for me, this hasn’t been one of them.
@ george Kendall
It is a battle and I fear we are doomed.
“the only real voices of dissent are coming from non members”
I’ve been a member for 29 years and I’m not sure how to shout any louder. if I do, George will tell me I’m some sort of barbarian. Anne, however, has it right. The point is not to have a quiet civilised debate and see if we can tidy up the coalition’s act a little. The point is to wake up the party of Lloyd George, Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams and Paddy Ashdown to the realisation that we are betraying all that we have ever stood for.
George
Having read many of your posts I would find it hard to view any of your comments to me as confrontational. So have no fear, I take it as read that your intention is not to offend.
When you talk about “fighting so hard”, I think that’s the root cause of the problem.
This is where we differ in perspective, as I will attempt to explain.
Pro-coalition people feel that the smallest admission that they don’t like some coalition policies will be seized on by tribal opponents to denounce the coalition. So they don’t offer those concessions.
And by not offering those concessions the coalition gets the green light to go ahead with its agenda. Nobody within the party is willing to dissent; therefore the party line is to support the policy.
So, if you are like me and you disagree with the policy then you find yourself alone. There is silence from the left of the party and compliance from the right, so it goes without saying that the policy goes unchallenged and the right gets their way.
By consequence, the poor and the vulnerable suffer due to the fear of the left to speak up…
Hence, people like me come along and make a lot of noise because nobody is sticking up for the vulnerable.
Where as, if the left of the party spoke up and expressed their dissent then people like me would hold the opinion that the vulnerable were being looked after and that this wasn’t just a right wing ideological attack on the poor. Which, sadly is the impression one gets from reading the comments on LDV
Again by consequence the party get’s attacked because the poor and the vulnerable are being trampled on any nobody within the Liberal Democrat party is speaking up for them.
So the public gain’s the impression that the Lib Dems are no different than the Tories because they are simply saying exactly the same thing as the Tories. And they are increasingly gaining that impression through the continued silence of party members in light of right wing policies.
Hence the cycle of attacks against the party is being encouraged by the silence of the left within the party.
You are destroying the reputation of the party by remaining silent George.
And that in turn will destroy the party.
One has to weigh up the consequences of staying silent.
They are…
Anger from the public.
A loss of identity for the party.
Diminishing support from the public.
And possibly the destruction or fragmentation of the party itself.
All this, just to not look like you are encouraging the tribal opponents of the coalition!
One word comes to mind
Masochistic!
The left of the party would rather see the long and painful destruction of the party than actually speak up for those who are suffering due to coalition policies.
Meanwhile, with all due respect, those in society that need protection from the government are being ripped to shreds and your primary concern is to not to be seen to be questioning the coalition.
George, I am still a liberal voter but it seems to me that the anger that so many of us have is fully justified by the silence of the party and its desire to protect itself above and beyond any need to protect the vulnerable.
The action’s you describe are self serving, not public orientated and if it continues then the party will have destroyed itself.
I repeat George, It is vital that you encourage those inside the walls of the member forum to come out and speak out. Or I fear that it is not a coalition with the Tories that will destroy the party but the silence of those within that will bring about its downfall.
Nick Clegg is already seen as a lap dog of the Tory right. Day by day the party is being tainted with the same brush.
Surely you don’t believe this policy of silence is helping ? It is only making matters worse…
People are suffering George. 250,000 people will be affected by this cap. 100% of unemployed people will have 10 percent of their housing benefit taken away if they fail to find employment within 12 months.
Real people are getting trampled on and all the party cares about is not being seen to disagree
It would be laughable if it were not so tragic for those affected.
And the survival of the party and the protection of the vulnerable is exactly what people like me are “fighting so hard” for.
I’m not even a member and I am working harder every day to ensure this party survives then anyone who is sitting alone in the dark in a nice cosy members forum.
David Allen,
Mea culpa. I do realise that good people like yourself are speaking up and I both commend you and thank you for that.
Don’t apologise, Barry. I’m not alone, but we do need far more members to come off the fence and speak up.
“We call it capitalism. Enjoy it or suck it up.”
I can only repeat, some of the opinions being posted here by so-called Liberals are astonishing. I don’t think this kind of trash would have been given the time of day when I joined the party in the late 1980s.
The recent comments earlier on this thread questioning whether people were any different from animals are another example.
Perhaps the moderators might give some attention to the possibility that people are posting offensive right-wing rubbish here under the guise of party members in a deliberate attempt to discredit the party. But I fear that – sadly – most of it is coming from people who consider themselves bona fide Lib Dems.
Editorial note: a quick reminder about our moderation policy, including the reference to personal abuse: https://www.libdemvoice.org/the-liberal-democrat-voice-team – and please remember not to rise to comments from others that you might think go to far. Thanks.
I am finding this discussion very interesting although it does seem to have got a little polarised.
As a committed Lib Dem I don’t have a problem with the general thrust of this policy. As several others have said we currently have a system where many people who don’t work receive a higher income than many who do, and where many who don’t work are enabled to live in areas where many who don’t can’t afford.
Average household income (which is not the same as one average salary John) seems to me to be a reasonable cap on overall benefits. Many working families do live on that level of income.
Some posters seem to have confused this with an overall cap on income. As I understand it the cap would apply to non-working families living entirely on benefits, not those working getting top up benefits. This seems right to me, as it encourages people to take jobs, even if they then need a top up. Far better that someone earns £10K and gets £20K benefits than they don’t work and get £26K benefits.
One of the posters (Barry I think?) pointed out that his rent is £1300 per month and that that would only leave £10K after rent to live on with a £26K cap. Well that is more than our income after housing costs has been for long periods while we have been bringing three kids up.
In the whole thread I haven’t seen any convincing reasons why people not working should be better off than those who are not.
I have read people explaining how hard this could be for some families, making them move to cheaper areas for example. I agree that that will be difficult, but it is no more difficult than for many thousands of other people who live where they can afford to live, not where they would like to live.
Exactly how this works in practice does matter. I share the concerns of those who point out that those temporarily unemployed could be hit very hard and would hope that.
What none of us knows is the impact the changes will actually have. The estimate of 250,000 people being forced to move is based on an assumption that rent levels will stay the same. I am not convinced that they will. Those who believe this presumably believe that the landlords of the 50,000 vacated properties will leave them standing empty? I doubt that. I think that the current HB rules inflate rent levels and that by capping them, rents will fall. This may mean a change in the mix of people in some communities, or that more working people will be able to affrod to move into those areas that currently only well off people or claimants can afford to live.
What I don’t understand is how this overall approach is seen as particularly right wing.
The purpose of the welfare state, that great Liberal acheivement, was to provide a safety net for people when they needed it so that they did not fall into poverty. It was not designed to provide people with an above average standard of living even if they never worked.
The changes that are being proposed will ensure that there is a clear incentive to work. That is good for them and good for the country.
@Anthony Aloysius St “For example, the cap on housing benefit for a three-bedroomed property is £340 a week. If a family were receiving that amount of housing benefit, the overall cap of £500 a week implies that it could receive no more than £160 a week, or £8320 a year, to cover all its other living expenses.”
The sort of income after housing costs that thousands of families live on.
“For a larger family, living in a four-bedroomed property, the housing benefit cap will be £400 a week. For a family receiving that amount of housing benefit, the overall cap would imply it could receive no more than £5200 a year to cover all its other expenses! It seems nonsensical. ”
It isn’t ‘nonsensical’, it just puts them in exactly the same position as a working family in the same position.
We would have loved to have lived in a four bedroom house for the past few years. We are quite cramped in our small three bedroomed terraced house and it would have been lovely if our kids didn’t have to share bedrooms. But we can’t afford it, so we live within our means. We live in a small house in a cheap area and have to travel further to work as a result.
Yes our budget is tight, but why should the budgets of those not working be any less tight?
Liberal Neil
One of the posters (Barry I think?) pointed out that his rent is £1300 per month and that that would only leave £10K after rent to live on with a £26K cap
There seems to be some confusion…
My comment was in reply to a poster stating that the cap should be £15k not £26k. I was highlighting that if I was unemployed (which I am not) a £15k cap would not cover my rent.
I wish I did have £10k to live on after rent !
Liberal Neil,
If the Tories were talking about this in the rational way that you are, I think less people would be worried. First, we need to ensure there is no cap for people who have recently become unemployed or whose benefits suddenly rise for some other reason. Second, we need to think hard about what sort of cap is viable at all if we don’t want to dislocate whole communities. But when we’ve done that, we could look at policies which put some sort of downward pressure on long term benefits payable to people in high cost areas, and consider incentives (sticks and carrots) to encourage people to move somewhere cheaper. As you say, that does happen to those in work.
But the Tories are not talking rationally. They are proposing a crude social expulsion policy to grab headlines, with more than a faint echo of the sort of thing Mao-Tse-Tung would have done with people he thought were living in inconvenient places. That’s the problem!
Unemployed now 2.7 million Total job vacancies 467000 – Labour Market Statistics September 2010
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0910.pdf
I was always taught that two into one will not go so how does 2.7 million go into 467000? The unemployed figure is also set to rise Therefore how many of the remaining ‘undeserving poor’ (the ones who will not be ABLE to find work?!!) will be badly affected by the welfare cap? Except for some wishy washy comments that the private sector will miraculously start recruiting I have heard nothing from the Lib Dems about this. In fact are they not exceptionally quiet today in the media? Is that a good or bad thing?
@Liberal Neil
Thanks for an excellent post.
All we have at present is an announcement to the Tory conference. We don’t know the details, and we don’t know what it’ll look like after our Lib Dem colleagues in government have forced through some changes. The end result may be much more palatable.
Two specific changes come to mind:
Carer’s allowance should be excluded from the cap. And the cap should not apply while you are on contribution-based JSA, so, if you lose your job, you get, perhaps, six months to get another before you have to move from your expensive rented accommodation.
George
so, if you lose your job, you get, perhaps, six months to get another before you have to move from your expensive rented accommodation.
I can’t speak for others but that doesn’t work for me.
My contract with my landlord (A well known estate agent) stipulates that if I choose to move out before the terms of the contract run out (12 months) then I have to continue to pay the rent for the remainder of the tenancy or until a suitable alternative tenant moves in.
This of course gives no incentive for the agent to find another tenant.
So if I lost my job and you gave me six months before I had to move, then I would have to both pay the rent in my new accommodation and continue to pay the rent for my old accommodation at the same time.
Of course this would be completely impossible with a £26k cap.
Once you sign a contract, you are bound by its terms so giving someone six months to move is nowhere near long enough.
Then there is the problem of how to move. If the government expects you to move then they need to explain ‘how’ you are supposed to do so.
You need.
One months rent
Five weeks deposit
Contract fees
Moving costs
How do you expect an unemployed person on £60 per week to actually come up with any funds to move to a cheaper flat?
What you will be left with is a Government that refuses to help you pay the rent but also refuses to help you move.
In one swoop the Government has just made that person homeless.
@George Kendall
When a bbad bad policy has been clearly announced and which you can’t defend you seem to have a tendancy of retreting into this ‘wait for the details’ mentality. Can’t you ever just say something one thing bad about the coalition when it is justified . I think you migh feel better for it !
“I also am worried by some very unfeeling posts and somehow I feel they are dehumanising those on benefits. We are talking about men, women and children here you know, I voted Lib Dem in the hope that there was going to be something new in politics Unfortunately, what I was sold on the doorstep did not match reality. Pity we can not go to Trading Standards!”
Anne I couldnt agree more. I voted for Clegg because I agreed with his stance on the deficit. He now says that he didnt believe what he was saying himself. He stole my vote. Surely if there was ever reason to recall your mp this is it. Blatant, bare faced lies
@Liberal neil
One of the posters (Barry I think?) pointed out that his rent is £1300 per month and that that would only leave £10K after rent to live on with a £26K cap. Well that is more than our income after housing costs has been for long periods while we have been bringing three kids up.
Are you sure you were claiming or counting all your benafits? I find these figures you quote for yourself quite extreme.(10K in total after paying the rent to feed/ heat clothe 5 people) ?? If by chance you are correct I would hope IDS’s propsals would help make work pay more for you . You should not however use your justifiable frustration for wanting to bring others down to their knees by putting them in an even worse position. When someone is genuinely unemployed they should get basic benefits on a basis on need .
@Neil
The purpose of the welfare state, that great Liberal acheivement, was to provide a safety net for people when they needed it so that they did not fall into poverty. It was not designed to provide people with an above average standard of living even if they never worked.
Read this statement you made back are you really saying that a large family with £26K has an above average STANDARD OF LIVING E.g Nice cars forign holidays). Please provide evidence if you are . Why do you add the bit about ‘even if they never worked’ ? is this not a bit of gradsdtanding to the gallery. The policy does not apply to just those who have never worked . It applies to any who have lost their jobs .
@Neil
**“For a larger family, living in a four-bedroomed property, the housing benefit cap will be £400 a week. For a family receiving that amount of housing benefit, the overall cap would imply it could receive no more than £5200 a year to cover all its other expenses! It seems nonsensical. ”
It isn’t ‘nonsensical’, it just puts them in exactly the same position as a working family in the same position.***
Neil sorry to keep on but behind that very reasonable tone there are a few things here that dont seem to me to make sense . Are you actually saying that you know of a family with 4 children that live successfully on a disposible income of £5.2K a year (thats <£900 each ). , and are you also saying they claim all of their tax credits etc.
@John Fraser
“When a bad bad policy has been clearly announced and which you can’t defend you seem to have a tendancy of retreating into this ‘wait for the details’ mentality. Can’t you ever just say something one thing bad about the coalition when it is justified . I think you migh feel better for it !”
John,
It’s very kind of you to want to make me feel better, but sadly, your prescription would make me feel worse. 😉
Interestingly, you’ve found one area where you have common cause with a few of the more tribal pro-coalition people. From their criticisms of some of my comments, they’d like me to be more forthright in my criticisms. Except their annoyance is that I don’t condemn Labour for causing the recession, attack Alistair Darling’s plan, or attack Labour for not holding a comprehensive spending review.
While getting more tribal wouldn’t make me feel better, what has helped is being more open about what I really feel.
For a few weeks after the coalition, I didn’t express any reservations, because I supported the coalition, and didn’t want to undermine it. Then, I realised that, as an anonymous grass root, as long as my criticisms weren’t framed in a way that a journalist could misquote as opposition to the coalition, I was free to express my concerns.
As a result, since then, I’ve said that I’d like the 10% cut in housing benefit for the long term unemployed to be scrapped, the health reorganisation put on hold while they had a good long think about it, income tax rises instead of other tax rises, protection of benefits, no like-for-like replacement of trident, carer’s allowance to be removed from the benefit cap, the housing benefit cap to only come in after six months, a slower deficit reduction programme, … and probably others.
But of course that’s not good enough for you, is it? 😉
You’d like me to denounce the coalition policy as if it were the slaughtering of the first born.
My whole approach to politics is that most decisions aren’t clear-cut, and there are arguments on both sides. There are, however, two policy areas that I feel absolutely passionate about: ending the poverty trap, and sorting out the deficit.
My preferred approach to sorting out the deficit is somewhere between the coalition’s and Darling’s. So you might expect me to be more sympathetic to Labour. Unfortunately, I no longer trust Labour to do it. From 1997 to 2003, their policies were reasonable. But after 2003, they ducked the hard decisions, stoking up a bubble, and running up large deficits.
As Eddie George (Governor of the Bank of England to 2003) said: “We knew that we were having to stimulate consumer spending,” he said. “We knew we had pushed it up to levels that couldn’t possibly be sustained into the medium and long term.”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6122361.ece
Unfortunately, the Labour leadership resolutely refused to take the necessary action to prevent the budget crisis we now face. Because Darling was trying to force more responsible policies, they used the whole gamut of dirty tricks to try to sack him.
I’d like to think Ed Miliband is different. That under him, Labour would be willing to take tough short-term action in the national interest. But, for me, the jury is definitely out.
Even if I’d prefer the coalition to change some policies. On the broadly issue of taking action now to prevent catastrophe in a few years, I am a passionate supporter. Even if the price of that is to be castigated as a Tory stooge.
Well that’s 136 comments and still not one person has managed to inform us ‘how’ the unemployed person is supposed to move. There are clearly many supporters of this policy but nobody has even attempted to explain how a person getting £60 a week benefits, and is then told to move, is actually going to find the money required to do so.
It is revealing to know that those that support this policy, have no words in response to those they are condemning to homelessness.
I should clarify a person getting £60 a week benefits is with regard to their unemployment benefit.
Housing benefit is paid straight to the landlord so it is not part of that persons disposable income
Child benefit is for looking after the child so it is not part of that persons dispasable income
and so on…
Let us not forget that the uneployed person should be actively seeking employment out of their £60 per week. Oh and then there is the silly little things like ‘food’ and bills.
@Barry George
“Well that’s 136 comments and still not one person has managed to inform us ‘how’ the unemployed person is supposed to move. There are clearly many supporters of this policy but nobody has even attempted to explain how a person getting £60 a week benefits, and is then told to move, is actually going to find the money required to do so.”
It’s a fair question. The reason I’ve hesitated about answering is that I don’t know. I expect this issue will be addressed, and it’s important it is, so it’s good that you are raising the question.
I’ve met Steve Webb, and I have a lot of respect for him. As he’s part of IDS’s team, I’m pretty confident he’ll make sure issues like this are looked at – and this is only one of the issues.
This isn’t an area I have any expertise in, but it’s likely to have been issue that has been addressed in the past . Does anyone have any expertise in this area, and know how other governments have handled it, in this country or in another?
George Kendall,
“I’d like the 10% cut in housing benefit for the long term unemployed to be scrapped, the health reorganisation put on hold while they had a good long think about it, income tax rises instead of other tax rises, protection of benefits, no like-for-like replacement of trident, carer’s allowance to be removed from the benefit cap, the housing benefit cap to only come in after six months, a slower deficit reduction programme, … and probably others.
But of course that’s not good enough for you, is it?
You’d like me to denounce the coalition policy as if it were the slaughtering of the first born.”
Well, no, I would like you to explain why you see so many of the faults, and yet remain such an enthusiastic supporter of the coalition.
Perhaps it’s an unworthy thought, but it often seems to me that you get deployed as the nice cop, while people like Mark Pack are deployed as the nasty cop. I appreciate that LDV does well to provide an open discussion forum without heavy-handed moderation (though let’s not boast, ConservativeHome do likewise). However, it seems that the price we have to pay for this is that the site is well patrolled by official loyalist posters, whose job is to point out why dissent is wrong!
David: apologies that your comment got wrongly tagged as spam and so delayed in appearing. Given your comment in it I think the computer code was having a little fit of irony 🙂
@David Allen “Well, no, I would like you to explain why you see so many of the faults, and yet remain such an enthusiastic supporter of the coalition.”
I thought I just had, when I talked about the two issues I am most passionate about.
“Perhaps it’s an unworthy thought, but it often seems to me that you get deployed as the nice cop, while people like Mark Pack are deployed as the nasty cop.”
On a web forum, there’s no way to know what’s going on behind the scenes, so there’s no way I can disprove what you are suggesting. All I can do is assure you that I’m a just an ordinary member. The only person who deploys me is … me. I’ve never met Mark Pack or any of the other members of the LDV team. I used to be very involved in the party. These days, I’m just an ordinary member, apart from spending a lot of time defending the party on LDV.
In terms of our status in LDV, you and I are exactly the same. You’ve had nine posts published by LDV. I’ve had eight. Other than those posts, my status is exactly the same as every person commenting on LDV.
But, thank you for suggesting I’m “nice”. 🙂 Though, I’m not sure why you’d think Mark Pack is nasty…